Let's play the T-Worthy Game

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I will submit this for thought: if a coach receives a technical foul and the situation is such that a crew of officials cannot rotate/switch as they normally do for fear (how I look at it) of something else happening with the coach, maybe the coach should have been ejected in the first place.

The original source is The Greater Philadelphia Basketball Official's Association. Here, in my little corner of Connecticut, we follow many, but not all, of these principles. We will often have the noncalling official remind the coach that he has lost his coaching box privilege. Tempers can sometimes escalate after a technical foul is charged, tempers by both the coach, and occasionally, the official, so it is sometimes conducive to separate them as soon as possible, even if it's just for a few minutes.

[fiasco]

Ok I got a new one for ya:

"Call the damn foul!"

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Ok I got a new one for ya:

"Call the damn foul!"

Okay, no one is going to bite on this, so I'll take it.

This one's an automatic T for me, happened last night.

Visiting coach hasn't said a peep all night. Not one thing to me or my partner other than to request a time out. Then with 1 minute left in the game, and his team down only by 4 points, there's a little scrum in front of his bench. Ball is loose, incidental contact, I have nothing. He says something about his player being put at a disadvantage, I ignore the comment. Then comes "Call the damn foul!"

Whack!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Okay, no one is going to bite on this, so I'll take it.

This one's an automatic T for me, happened last night.

Visiting coach hasn't said a peep all night. Not one thing to me or my partner other than to request a time out. Then with 1 minute left in the game, and his team down only by 4 points, there's a little scrum in front of his bench. Ball is loose, incidental contact, I have nothing. He says something about his player being put at a disadvantage, I ignore the comment. Then comes "Call the damn foul!"

Whack!

Options:

1) Ignore
2) Address: "When there is a foul, I'll get it"
2) Address: "I saw xxxxx."


For me, a T is way down the list of options on this statement, especially in the situation you mentioned (nothing out of the coach until now).

The statement is a heavy straw to add to the camel's back, though.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Options:

1) Ignore
2) Address: "When there is a foul, I'll get it"
2) Address: "I saw xxxxx."


For me, a T is way down the list of options on this statement, especially in the situation you mentioned (nothing out of the coach until now).

The statement is a heavy straw to add to the camel's back, though.

Hm...here's where we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I consider profanity directed at an official in this manner an automatic T. Unsportsmanlike in HS.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Options:

1) Ignore
2) Address: "When there is a foul, I'll get it"
2) Address: "I saw xxxxx."


For me, a T is way down the list of options on this statement, especially in the situation you mentioned (nothing out of the coach until now).

The statement is a heavy straw to add to the camel's back, though.

Me too. D@mn is an adjective for foul, not something directed at me, the official. Besides, that word (and few words) really bother me. It's the actions that go with the words that get the response.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Besides, that word (and few words) really bother me. It's the actions that go with the words that get the response.

It has nothing to do with whether something bothers me or not. It has to do with what is sportsmanlike or not. Personally, I consider it blatantly unsportsmanlike for a coach (or player) to use a profanity directed at a high school official. I think it sends a bad message to the kids, especially.

If you disagree, that's fine, but the bottom line is that we shouldn't be handing out Ts based on our feelings.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by fiasco

It has nothing to do with whether something bothers me or not. It has to do with what is sportsmanlike or not. Personally, I consider it blatantly unsportsmanlike for a coach (or player) to use a profanity directed at a high school official. I think it sends a bad message to the kids, especially.

If you disagree, that's fine, but the bottom line is that we shouldn't be handing out Ts based on our feelings.

+1

I was taught to respect authority figures. "Call the damn foul" is nothing but disrespect (10-4-1a, which came into play after Naismith did his thing in 1891). I don't see any gray area here at all.

Bob, "Let 'em Play" is more likely to get a stern look and "not again" from me than a T. Certainly Roman and Level Law applies. As for Carlin, I'm very familiar with his "idiots and maniacs" bit for driving, didn't know if it applies to anything else.

(I sense a YouTube link forthcoming.)

[Rich]

Originally Posted by fiasco

It has nothing to do with whether something bothers me or not. It has to do with what is sportsmanlike or not. Personally, I consider it blatantly unsportsmanlike for a coach (or player) to use a profanity directed at a high school official. I think it sends a bad message to the kids, especially.

If you disagree, that's fine, but the bottom line is that we shouldn't be handing out Ts based on our feelings.

This is after you say, "Personally, I consider it" which is the same thing as saying, "I feel..."

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Okay, no one is going to bite on this, so I'll take it.

This one's an automatic T for me, happened last night.

Visiting coach hasn't said a peep all night. Not one thing to me or my partner other than to request a time out. Then with 1 minute left in the game, and his team down only by 4 points, there's a little scrum in front of his bench. Ball is loose, incidental contact, I have nothing. He says something about his player being put at a disadvantage, I ignore the comment. Then comes "Call the damn foul!"

Whack!

Actually, I touched on this one earlier, fiasco, and I completely agree with you.

Aside to Bob & Rich: Even if you took out the word "damn," you still have an imperative sentence. Since when is that tolerable?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Aside to Bob & Rich: Even if you took out the word "damn," you still have an imperative sentence. Since when is that tolerable?

Since 1865 (or whenver Naismith wrote the first rules).

You're going to T for "Let 'em play" when a coach thinks you're calling it too tight(ly)?

It's both a "when in Rome" thing, a "level of play" thing, and a George Carlin "idiots and maniacs" (or whatever he used) thing.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Actually, I touched on this one earlier, fiasco, and I completely agree with you.

Aside to Bob & Rich: Even if you took out the word "damn," you still have an imperative sentence. Since when is that tolerable?

It's a big fat ignore for me. Answer questions, ignore statements. He says "Call the damned foul" and I don't even look in his direction and keep officiating. If he repeated it or continues, I deal with it -- maybe by simply giving him a look or saying, "I heard you the first [N] times."

If it's loud, prolonged, or personal, deal with it. That can include many things and may or may not include a technical foul.

But a technical foul for a head coach is likely not going to come this easily. Not varsity and up anyway.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Ok I got a new one for ya:

"Call the damn foul!"

Depends on context and volume for me.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The original source is The Greater Philadelphia Basketball Official's Association. Here, in my little corner of Connecticut, we follow many, but not all, of these principles. We will often have the noncalling official remind the coach that he has lost his coaching box privilege. Tempers can sometimes escalate after a technical foul is charged, tempers by both the coach, and occasionally, the official, so it is sometimes conducive to separate them as soon as possible, even if it's just for a few minutes.

Here in my little corner of the silver state , the instructional chair - who is wonderful gentleman - put together a list of "10 things" we will all do for consistency. Included in that list is the calling official will take a position away from the coach following a direct technical foul on the coach. What that means is the calling official is away during the technical foul shots and when the game resumes the crew will use normal mechanics. What you posted said, "...even if it means not making a switch...". I do not agree with that philosophy at all. Again, if a situation with a coach is so bad that your crew does not rotate for fear of something else happening, maybe the coach should have been ejected in the first place. Also, if the calling official cannot be next to the coach following the technical free throws and subsequent action, maybe officiating isn't for him or her.

It is your little corner of whatever so those are the guidelines you follow. I just think that both the coach and the official should be able to be near each other following technical free throws and live action (which would put the official back near the coach). If they cannot, one of both of them shouldn't be there. If this happened I doubt it would be the first time for either of them so the guilty party should be removed from this beautiful game I love.

That is just how we think in my little corner of the silver state.